High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Naresh Chand Tyagi v. Asstt. Commissioner (Stamps) & Others - WRIT - C No. 9654 of 2003  RD-AH 47 (21 March 2003)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9654 of 2003
Naresh Chand Tyagi vs. Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), Muzaffarnagar & others.
Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J
Hon'ble O.P. Srivastava, J.
By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has come for quashing of the citation/sale proclamation dated 30.1.2002, contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, and for commanding respondent no.2 to decide his revision, which has been filed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) dated 3.6.2002, contained in Annexure 1 of the writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Indra Sen Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) vide order dated 3.6.2002 found that there is deficiency of Rs.4,37,625/-. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) preferred revision before respondent no.2, which is still pending disposal. However, during the pendency of this revision recovery proceeding, pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp), to recover the amount of deficiency of stamp has been initiated. He further sought to argue that a compromise was entered into between the parties upon which an order was passed under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act pursuant to which no document or deed is executed, which requires registration, thus, stamp duty can not be levied pursuant to the order passed under Section 9-A of the Act. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that against the order of the Assistant Commissioner levying the stamp duty the petitioner has preferred a revision under Section 56 of the Act and, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
It is settled legal position that where the compromise decree is a bona fide and not a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the law relating to registration and the decree does not attract any of the clauses of sub Section (1) of Section 17, does not require registration. However, where the decree of compromise is obtained only with a view to obviate payment of stamp duty or to frustrate the law relating to registration or where such compromise decree creates for the first time right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- or upwards in favour of any party to the suit, the decree, or order requires registration. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and others, AIR 1996 SC 196.
In the case in hand, admittedly, against the order of the Assistant Commissioner (Stamp) the petitioner has preferred a revision as provided under Section 56 of the Act before the revisional court and, therefore, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate to express any opinion on the merit of the contention raised by the parties at this stage. In fact the writ petition is premature and does not lie at this stage as the petitioner has availed the remedy of revision under the Act. We are further of the view that the recovery proceeding should not have been initiated till the disposal of the revision.
In this view of the matter, we dispose of this petition at this stage with the direction that the revision of the petitioner may be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order after hearing all the necessary parties. It is further directed that the recovery proceeding for the recovery of stamp duty shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the revision and shall abide by the order passed in the revision of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.